The High Court · 2025

17. Sri. K- Anil Kumar, S/o. Srr Goverdhana Chary, Ag: estate, Fyo. H.No. 1-7-503/A, Bakaram, lrlusheerabarj '18.Sri P. Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Sri Yadaiah, Age.47 y: Rlo.2-2-5511 3, S hanti Nagar, Hyderabad. 50 years. Occ. Real lyderabad. rrs, Occ. Real estate,

19. Smt. P. Saraswathi, W/o. P. Bagawanth Rao, Agc estate, R/o. H.No. 301, Pleasant house, Gayatri Nar;;r Ir4alkajgiri District. 47 yearc, Occ. Real . Jer>dimetla, Medchal

20.sri. V. Narsaiah,, Sio. Late Sri. Shankaraiah, Age.84',r RJc. H.No. 12-13-34, G.F. Street, Tarnaka, Secundera: ars. Occ. Real Estate. rd.

21. S,'i N. Prasad S/o Sn Kishan Rao, R/o. 3-B-12, Ran-:. lvleCchal Malkajgiri District. r lha r trr village Uppal.

22.Srt. K. Govcrdhana Chary, S/o. Sri K. Shankaraiah'r Occ. Carpenter, R/o H No. 1-7-50311, Bakaram, Musl-,c )lran7, Age. 77 years, :rabad, Hyderabad.

23. Smt. B. Sathya Anasuya, W/o. Sri. Raja Ratnam, Ag < estate, R/o. H.No. 2 2-215113, Bakaram, [r4usheerabar . 50 years, Occ. Real Hyderabad.

24. Sri. Deekonda Ambadas, S/o. Sri D. Ramulu, Age. 4.] Rio. H.No 1 1-3-357/8/4, Santhosh Nagar, Parsi aida S years, Occ. Business, :currderabad.

25. Sri. P. Giridhar Rao, Sio. Sri Laxman Rao Age. 60 ye R/o. Plot No. 101 . Sri Sai Apartments, A.V.V. Nagar, i hyderabad rrs, Occ. Real estate, reet No. 8, habsiguda 26 Smt. Thokata Narsing Rao, , S/o. Late ThokataSandar: agricultural coolie, Rl/o. H.No. 2-5-42, lndiranagar, '/ Temple Road, Uppal, Medchal District. (L.R. of Late Tlrr I Age. 45 years, Occ. ;nkateshwara Swamy kata Neelamma ) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of In,j a praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the: High Court may be pleased to issue any order, direction or Writ, more particular ,/ one in the nature of Certiorari. calling for the records relating to records F_ r )ceedings in appeal including order dt. 24.O2.2O18, Case No. F11182812) t6 passed by 2nd Respondent as well as File No. J/4080/1996. dt. 06-09-1997 passed by Respondent No,3 (RDO) and to quash the same and consequently allow the Appeal filed before Respondent No. 2 to the extent as prayed for therein and to grant Occupancy Rights Certificate in favor of the Petitioner herein lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the operation of RDO's order dt. 06.09.1997 in File No. J/4080/ 1 996pe nd ing disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI ABHISHEK N Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: SRI L. RAVINDER, AGp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 26 : --- The Court made the following: ORDER I I I ', I 1 i I I I L f ) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VIi {UGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.34690 of 2O! 5 ORDER This Writ Petition is filed s:ekir-rg the lbl.r rving relicf:- "...lcl lsslle Any order, clirection or u'r ir particularlr onc in thc nature of Certiorari, tz thc rccorcls rclating to the proceedings i'l irrclr.rciLirg orcler, datecl 24.O2.20lt'. No Fl1lt32B/20 I6 passcd by rcspondent No.2 as FiLe No Ji.+080/ 199(r. datcd 06.09.1997 1: rcsponrlt'rrL No 3 ancl to quash the sar c:onsrrlircntl',, allou' tht appeal lLled before l t s No.2 to thc cstcnt as pravecl for therein ar.ld ()ccuiriirrc-\' Rglrts Certi{lcate in lar ottr of thc ] hcrcin " IIlore ling for appeal Czrse as u,ell ;scd bv Lt: ,-trtd )o nc.ent o grant ) l itiO ner 2 Hearcl Sri Abhishck N, learned cor r:sel for tl're petitioner and Sri L.Ravrnder, iearnt t Assistant Government Pleacler for Revenue appcil: ng for the respondents. Perltsed the record

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner woLtl. submit that the mother of the petitioner, by name Thok€-t a Nellamma, had acquired the land admeasuring Ac.O. 1 I guntas 1n Sy.No.94 and Ac.O.02 guntas 1n Sy.No. Li2 [, from her r I J 2 EVV, J wp 31690_2025 father in-lau,, Thokatta Narsimha, \vho was the original inamdar ol the said land. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the or;ginal inamdar- Thokatta Narsimha died on 22.O2.1975 leaving behind his son Thokatta Sandaiah, the father of the petitioner herein as sole legal heir ar-rd after the death of T. Sandaiah on

17.OB.I9B7, the mother of the petitioner by name Thokata Neelamma had succeeded to the said land but the name of Sandaiatr had continued in the revenue records upto I995- 1996 and thereaJter, the name of the mother of the petitioner has appeared in the revenue records as possessor. Lcarned counsel for the petitioner lvould further submit that on 30.07.2015, respondent No.5, along w'ith others, r'r,ithout having any right or title 'uvhatsoever over the sard land, u.hen tried to dispossess the petitioner's mother from the subject land, she was constrained to file a suit for perpetual injunction uide O.S.No.473 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ralga Reddy, which was closed on 20.08.2018. l,earned counsel for the petitioner u,ould further submit that the mother of the ^ 3 F-\r\'. J Wr 14690 202i pe titioner also frlccl O.S.No.693 of 2Ol7 on r lr file of the II Additional District Judge, Rzulga Redclr District at L.B.Nagar. u'herein IA.No.997 ll7 $,as l led seekir-rg rejection of the plarnt. The said l.A. was alLr rved and tl-re suit was rejcctcd. Aggrievcd by the sarle, - re mother of the petitioner filed A.S.No.76 of 2O2O and [he same is pending beforc this Court. Learned cor r rsel for tl-re petitioner u'oulcl further submit that the r:: rther of the peritioner camc to knori' through the u'ritr t n statement iiled by responclcnL No.5 hcrcin in O.S.No.47. rl 2015 that, u,ithout an possession or record as on the ,l: -e of vesting shc r,vas g;-:rntccl O.R.C. uidc ORC No.J/.10Ett 1996, dated 04 .O9 .1997 aftcr collecting premium arnoun t u1d later the Mandal Revenue Officer, Uppal, had implernlr .ted the said O.R.C., u,rde proceedings No.B/7979 1 97, date: 1 1..O9.1997 Immediatel,r', the mother of the petitioner ha: filed appeal No.Fl/l82Bl2016 before the Joint Collectt:r Malkajgiri- Medchal District, seeking to set aside thc ;aid O.R.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner would liL. ther submit that, as per the provisions of the Telangalrr Abolition of ;i 4 EVV, J wp 3469u 2025 Inams Act, 1955 (for short "the Act, 1955"), there are two crucial dates of vesting t.e., 20.O7 . i955 and 01. I 1. 1973 and since 2O.O7 .1955, the Inam lands ar'- r":sted in the State absolutely free lrom all encumbralces and the State became the owner of all Inam lalds and no one had ar-ly nght to make any claim except occupation ar-td cultivation and that 01.11.1973 is the vesting date decided for grant ol Occupancy Rights. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, on the crucial dates, the grandfather of the petitioner, by name Thokata Narsimha, u,as in ph1'sical posscssion of the sutrject property ar-rd i respondent No.5 u.as never in physical possessiot-r ol the said property and as per the letter bearing No.A/6049/1996, dated 31.08.1996, the nature of the subject land is Mafi Inam land and that the said Thokata Narsimha r,vas in possession on the crucial dates of vesting and uide Report in File No.J /298811992, dated L6.O2.1992, Thokata Narsimha was recorded as possessor in the revenue records on crucia-l dates. \ .i 5 I.]VV. J \Vp 3:1690 2025

4. l,earned counsel lor the petitioner r rultl further submit that respondent No.5, claiming that t Ie petitioner, along witl-r his mother. has sold the subje,: propertl, in favour of her husband b,r. name Pogula Rar-t Reddy for a sale consideration of Rs.60,000/- through unregistered sale deed, dated 25.06.1989 ald basing on he said sale deed, she had obtained the Occupalcl' Rigtr s Certificate (ORC). Aggrieved b,r, the strmc, the mother o1 he petitioner filed Appeal Case No.Fl/ 1828 of 2016 belo- respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitionelr ruld further submit that respondent No_5 is the u.ife of ,l c purchaser ar-id not h'rarndar an cl thc purchase \,vas nt:l , : ajter 1955 only and as on the crucial vested date, the i; the petitioner u,as in posscssion ol the sult t ardiather of ct land but, without considering the same ard ',vithout cr r ducting ar-ry enquiry, respondent No.3 had issued the ORr_ in favour of respondent No.5, which was erroneousl). r rnfirmed by respondent No.3 uide order, dated 24.O2.2C

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further su1) nit that the appea-l was prosecuted by the mother of the l retitioner till i I I 7t 6 EVV. J Wp 34690 2025 her death i.e., on 07 .l2.2OlB and thereafter, the petitioner, after coilecting all the documents- had filed the present writ petition challenging the order, dated 24 .O2.2OlB passed in Appeal Case No.F1/ lB2Bl2016.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 would submit that the mother of the appellant filed alr appeal under Section 24 of the Act, 1955, challenging the ORC granted in favour of respondent No.5 herein in File No.J/a080/ 1996, dated

06.O9 .1997 . He u,ould further submit that respondent No.5, after the death of her husbar-rd, who was in possession ol the subject lancl as on the date of vesting, had approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division for regrant and who in turn having conducted enquiry as contemplated under Section 4 read with Section 10 of the Act, 1955 ald having found that she was in possession of the land admeasuring Ac.O.O6 guntas 1n Sy.No.94; Ac.O.136 guntas 1n Sy.No.124 ald Ac.O.38 guntas in Sy.No.16, situated at Uppa-l Bhagayath Village, Uppal Mandal, Ralga Reddy District, granted ORC in Form l i ,) 7 L-\'\I,.I wp i-16e0 2015 No.ill, uide No.J/4080 1996, dated Ot.)9.i997 by coilecting a sum of Rs.2,850/ tolr.:u-r I , prcmium Thereafter, on the application made by res;ir,rrdcnt No.5 respondent No.3 had implemented the saic ORC in the re\renue records ulde proceedings No. B / 79 i 6 I 97 , dated

11.09 .1997 . He u,ould further submit that t re said land was converted into plots and the same \\,ere i sposcd o1 to third parties. The bonafide purchasers oI t - : piots have constructed residential houses and commerciai establishments and they have been in possr ssion of the satne for the last several vears and tirat ther'r is no vacanl lar-rd available. He u,ou1d further submit th:Lr he appeal is liled in the 1'ear 20 i6 whereas the ORC grarltrr I in favour of respondent No.5 is in the year 1997 and aftcr long lapse of 19 years, the petitioner's mother liled the ap real and the writ petition is also filed seven years lil .t r i.e., after dismissal of the appeal and therefore, the ur it petition is J liable to be dismissed on the sole ground , f delay ald laches. -7 8 E\ry, J wp 34690_2025

6. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.5 had obtained ORC by misrepresenting the facts ald creating fa-lse and fake unregrstered documents in the names of some of the legal representatives of the original inamdars/possessors in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0.06 guntas in Sy.No.94; Ac.O.13 guntas in Sy.No.124 and Ac.0.38 guntas in Sy.No.156 of Uppal Bagayath Village and the sarne was challenged by' filing the appeal. It is the further case of the petitioner that the ORC obtained by respondent No.5 herern came to the knowledge of the petitioner's mother through the written statement fiied in O.S.No.473 ol 2015 by the defendants on 19.02.2016 Therefore, the mother of the petitioner f,lled the appeal challenging the said ORC u,ithin the period of limitation It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No.5 had obtained ORC by misrepresenting the facts and as on the date of crucial dates, the grandfather of the peLitioner was ln physical possession of the said land and either respondent No.5 or her husband, who alleged to have 9 EV\'. ] Wp 3.1690 2025 purchased the subject land through unr: listered sale deed, was never in possession of the same 7 . As seen from the impugned order, r t lr the case of respondent No.5 that her husband had trr rchased the subject land through unregistered sale leed, dated

25.06.1989 arrd after the death of her hur;lr:nd. she has succeeded to the said la,nd. It is the fr- r,her case of respondent No.S that the mother ol the i r titioner filed O.S.No.473 of 2015, which ri.as closed on 2() 18.2018 and the suit i.e., O.S.No.693 of 2077 filed by the l etitioner and his mother seeking declaration of title \\,a,. .ejected uide I.A.No.997 of 2Ol7 . dated 23.O9.2019.

8. Admittedly, ORC was granted in favour , f respondent No.S in the year 1997 in respect of the ianc admeasuring Ac.0.16 guntas in Sy.No.94; A.O.02 guntas lrL Sy.No.l24 of Uppal Bhagayath Village uide ORC No..J t4OB0 11997, anothr r ORC uide dated O9.06.1997. Earlier to it Ref.No.J/2933/92, dated 10.06.1992 was i sued in the name of Gunde Krishna and others in re s pect of lan{ t0 EVV, J wp 3,1690 2025 admeasuring Ac.O.24 guntas in Sy.Nos.94 and 124 and respondent No.5 hereir-r ar-rd the said Gunde Krishna have jointly obtained layout for total extent of Acs.2.O 1 guntas covered by both the said ORCs, converted the same into plots and sold to individual plot holclers.

9. It is settled principle of larv that the parties are not entitled to seek correction of revenue entries after a long lapse of time and the parties have to approach the authorities u.ithin a reasonable time. Even if Statute does not prescribe any specihc time 1imit, the .limitation as prescribed under Article 137 ol the Limitation Act rvould apply to all cases, more particularlf iu cases s'here relief is sought for deciaration of propertl' rights.

10. The Honble Supreme Court, rvhile dealing rvith the issue relating to undue delay and laches, in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Digambarl, observed as under:- "A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Maharashtra State Road Trarsport Corporation v. Shri Balwant Regular I (1995) suPP 1 scR l : I I I I ! !j 11 TVV I 'r:p 11690 l0l5 tr'lotor Scn,icc, Amravati & Ors. [1969 (1) S(-]i 80 jl. rert('ratcd tlie said principle of laches or unduc I Le1' as that which applied in exercise of pou,er b]- the H !,1 (lorlrt r:rrdcr Arrr )c 226 of the ConsriruLion. Therefore, where a High Court in exercise of it.; restr:d Lrrrclcr Arltcle 226 of the Constitution i:: drrection. order or rwit for granting relief to :r including a citizen uithout considering his disent,r ' for such r clief clue to his blame-worthy conducr o delay or l:rches in claiming the same, such a tl.r. ordcr or rr-rit bccomes unsustainable as that n( L .;udiciouslv rurd rcasonably in exercise of rts jLrdic:ial discretion, but as that made arbitrarily. po\\ er les a )ors()n r ndrte c tior.r. lnarlc ;rturLd XXX 'lhus, whr:n the \.vrit petitioner (respondent he r guilt-v of Liches or undue delav in approaching tl L, Cottrt, tlrr' 1;rinciplc of laches or undue dela1, ad,,..: abovc, discntitlerd the writ petitioner (respondent Ic discretiorran relief under fuicle 226 of the Cons r from thc High Court, partrcularly, u'hen virtu r attempt had been made by the writ petitioner to : his blamc w'orthy conduct of undue delay or lach: High Courr, therefore, was wholly wr-ong in grantrr l in relalion to inquiring into the allegation and g-. compensation for his land alleged to have been us scarcity relief road works in the year l97l-72......., I \VIIS t{igh ,rd -,) -c) frl r utic,ll .-\' rt() :lllarn , The re licf :d for l .l I I i l i I Ij I I t I ,l t2 EVV, J Wp_34690 202-s l:

11. In the case of Mrinomy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and others2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "This Court tirne and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or laches is one of the factors rvhich should be born in mind by the Hrgh Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article '226 of tl-re Constitution of India. In a given casc, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxitY on the part of the applicant to assert his right trzrs allou'cd the cause of action to drift away and attcmpts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed causc of action"

12. In the instant case, admittedly, the ORC was granted in favour of respondent No.5 in the year 1997, thereafter, the layout was grarted a-nd the said larrd \\'as converted into plots and sold to individual plot owners. Section 24 of the Act, 1955 confers right to prefer appeal b1-al aggrieved person against the decision of the competent authority in grarting ORC under Section 10 of the Act, 1955. Section 24 of the Act, 1955 prescribes 3O days time to prefer such appeal from the date of decision. Even assuming for a '? (2oz4Fsa so6 t3 I:\,V, J Wp 3,1690 2025 moment that the mother of the petitioner r ame to the knorvledge of the ORC obtained by responr I r-rt No.5 on 12 .O9 .2016 through the rvritten statement iled by the defendant in O.S.No.473 of 2015, she ought o have liled the appeal u'ithin 30 days from that date. Bir the mother of the petitioner filed an appeal after long lapst of 19 r,'e ars of granting ORC. Apart from that, the writ p,: ition is also fiied after seven years of dismissal of the ap peal bv the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the, pin ion that either the petitioner or his mother, are nr t dil igent in pursuing the matter. Hence, this writ pet;t,r n liled and frarned is misconceived and is liable to be disrr ssed on the sole ground of delay and laches.

13. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismir sed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petition s pending, if any, shall star-r d closed. //TRUE COPY// *SD/.C. DEEPIKA ASIi STANT REGISTRAR SEc TION OFFICER \ To, 1 Principalsecretary,RevenueDivision,MedchalMallzigiriDistrict'Stateof Tetangana, Telangana.

2. The Joint Collector, tVledchal ltlalkajgiri District 3. The RDO, Medchal Malkajgiri Division'

4. The Tahsildar, Uppal Mandal, Medchat lValkajgiri District. 5. One CC to SRI ABHISHEK N, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana

7. Two CD Copies PVL BS 1-4/ \ HIGH COURT DATED:1711112025 ORDER WP.No.34690 of 2025 1; l) tt; .Mlu ,[ I t DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \0